Author
Topic: 24-105mm vs 17-40mm on crop (Read 12483 times)

Eugene

I'm saying L lenses because I do require the weather sealing due to the weather I'm living in (surprise rain, and upgrading body soon too).Also to add to that, I've checked my last few hundred photos and around 6 out of then would be in the range of 24-105, 2 would be the range of 17-40, and the others would be 105+. M(These shots are from a trip, shots from my events will require longer lens)

Tijn

Option 1: 17-40L. Get improved sharpness on your wide/standard zoom range (from the 17-40L) but miss out on IS, miss out on that extra quality for the short tele range (from the 24-105L), and end up with a superwide angle lens if you go fullframe.

Option 2: 24-105L. Get improved sharpness with IS on a wide short tele range (from the 24-105L) but miss out on wide angles (you'll have to revert to your kit lens for those, or buy a 17-40L *as well* which is not really economically friendly nor particularly efficient for what you intend to do), and end up with a great allround lens if you go fullframe.

Option 3: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Get better sharpness on the whole zoom range than the L lenses in these range offer, with a faster lens. Sell it when you go fullframe (or keep it on the old body). Miss out on weather sealing or look for alternative methods of achieving it.

Personally I'd look into finding alternatives for weather proofing if that's a breaking point for you. There are raincovers for DSLR's that will provide more waterproofing than 'weathersealing' on lenses. With the benefits of a 17-55 versus the L ones, this should be given a thought. If option 3 is out of the question for you, and you're going to have to pick between those two lenses, above is the list of pros and cons. Pick what would most suit your wants. If it's any help, out of option 1 and 2 it'd be a definate 2 for me personally, because my style doesn't tend to wide shots and more to closeups/portraits. I'd kick myself a couple of times for not being able to get the wide shots with that lens, but it'll be great for the range I prefer most (I use the far end of my standard 17-50 tamron zoom much more than the wide end) and it'd do great on a future fullframe body.

Logged

Eugene

Thanks the pros and cons!!Now, if I do decide to go with the 24-105mm, I'm not REALLY missing out on TOO much wide angle (I've tried shooting around at 24 today)So, let's say I'd have just about enough cash by the end of the year (after assuming I've already bought the 24-105), and sell my 18-55 kit lens, and have enough cash for either a sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the one from Tamron when I REALLY need it in some situation.Would this plan be efficient? And are the sigmas and tamrons as good in image quality (I wouldn't care too much about the build quality, due to the fact that it wouldn't be my primary lens, I suppose)

Logged

00Q

Tijn

The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without VC (the NON-stabilized version) is generally considered to be very sharp. I find that it indeed is very sharp, and useful in low light because of the constant f/2.8 aperture. Zoom ring turns the other way than Canon lenses, its autofocus is noisy but decently fast. I do get some halo-ish glow on high contrast edges with my 17-50 wide open (f/2.8 ) at 50mm (i.e. white-black vertical edges), but I do not have enough experience with it yet to tell whether this is a major problem or not (how often/if I'd "lose" shots because of it). Sharpness is otherwise very decent for a lens that cheap. Where I live, it's 500eu cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which has greater image quality and IS. On my budget it was the best choice for me.

I've no experience with the Sigma. I only know that this particular Tamron lens stands out because of its high sharpness, big aperture yet so low price. The same Tamron lens with image stabilization (VC) is said to lack this sharpness.

The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without VC (the NON-stabilized version) is generally considered to be very sharp. I find that it indeed is very sharp, and useful in low light because of the constant f/2.8 aperture. Zoom ring turns the other way than Canon lenses, its autofocus is noisy but decently fast. I do get some halo-ish glow on high contrast edges with my 17-50 wide open (f/2. at 50mm (i.e. white-black vertical edges), but I do not have enough experience with it yet to tell whether this is a major problem or not (how often/if I'd "lose" shots because of it). Sharpness is otherwise very decent for a lens that cheap.

I've no experience with the Sigma. I only know that this particular Tamron lens stands out because of its high sharpness, big aperture yet so low price. The same Tamron lens with image stabilization (VC) is said to lack this sharpness.

Comparable to 17-40. I tested it vs 17-40 and at some settings it was better than canon. And 2.8.

Thanks the pros and cons!!Now, if I do decide to go with the 24-105mm, I'm not REALLY missing out on TOO much wide angle (I've tried shooting around at 24 today)So, let's say I'd have just about enough cash by the end of the year (after assuming I've already bought the 24-105), and sell my 18-55 kit lens, and have enough cash for either a sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the one from Tamron when I REALLY need it in some situation.Would this plan be efficient? And are the sigmas and tamrons as good in image quality (I wouldn't care too much about the build quality, due to the fact that it wouldn't be my primary lens, I suppose)

So with the assumption you have the 24-105 and sell the 18-55, and then you find yourself needing to go wider, then pick up a 10-22. If the need for wide is infrequent consider used or rental. Now you have a very nice set of lens which do compliment each other. (BTW, the 10-22 has a good resale value if you ever switch to FF.) Not sure what the resell on the 18-200 is but you might dump it too to help fund your lens upgrade. Work on your lens first then your body.

Actually I have been using both 24-105 and 17-40 for several years now using only crop bodies (40D, 50D and 7D). Originally I used a 24-105 and then I added the 17-40 for wider angle shots. Although the 24-105 is no longer my primarily used lens, I still use it far more often compared to the 17-40, which as noted before by others is really a wide angle zoom lens for full frame. It just makes less sense on a crop body. You would be better off going for a 14mm 2.8 prime later on to cover wide angle shots in L quality. This lens is just fabulous.

You may have already eliminated this as an option because you said weather sealing but if you wanted a little longer reach then the 17-55 IS the 15-85 is a possibility saving you a few hundred to get a 7D over a 60D. Never used it but its optically as good as the 17-55 and probably the 24-105 from what I hear.

I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70DMy question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......

I shoot events, sports, streets, presentations, trips, etc.

It's a matter of taste and your specific needs. If you ask me: neither of them. And this is one of the reasons I did not buy a 7D and went full-frame instead. f/4 on crop doesn't leave enough options for shallow DOF in my book. So with a crop camera I would have wanted the 24-70 for the zoom and the rest primes (kind of where I'm going anyway but that's a different story). So the savings in the end are marginal. I've never used the 17-40 and it doesn't appeal to me. I have the 24-105. It's pretty good and the range is useful but I'm not thrilled about the f/4 and don't like IS.

I'd go find a 24-70 while they're still available. It's roughly the equivalent of 35-100 and at 2.8 should be quite versatile even on crop.